PM to appoint Tory insiders to Senate

[jdobbin]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nation...article1266314/

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is set to fill Senate vacancies with some of his closest Conservative backers in the second round of Red Chamber patronage appointments in less than a year.

Mr. Harper's campaign chair, Doug Finley, and his long-time communications assistant, Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, are set to become senators in the coming days. Conservative Party president Don Plett is also on the list of Senate nominees.

Not surprising.

If the Tories do get their majority in the Senate, I guess we'll just see how far he can push Senate reform before the provinces push back in the courts.

Don Martin's view:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/st...html?id=1934468

An ideological politician who was disgusted at watching Parliament's upper house turned into a vote-stacking exercise, where only the faintest of sober second thoughts actually take place, Mr. Harper has turned ruthlessly partisan in making his Senate appointments, elevating party loyalty into a key consideration for the cushiest job on the Hill.

The argument for such behaviour was first advanced after Mr. Harper rushed 18 bums into Senate seats when the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition was threatening to take down his government. Better to load up the Red Chamber with loyalists before the Liberals handed out those juicy plums, he argued. But is it absolutely necessary for Mr. Harper to fill these $132,000-a-year positions, with retirement deferred to age 75, with such fanatical loyalists?

Edited August 27, 2009 by jdobbin

[g_bambino]

Better to load up the Red Chamber with loyalists before the Liberals handed out those juicy plums, he argued.

I'm not entirely sure how any Senator could be considered a loyalist to a political party. They may hold certain political ideologies, but, once appointed to the upper house, what benefit is there to cow to the whims of a party leader? The Prime Minister can't threaten a Senator with dismissal, and why would someone getting paid $130,000 annually want to vote to diminish their own job security? The red chamber was built with a thick wall between it and the severely partisan commons.

[madmax]

I'm not entirely sure how any Senator could be considered a loyalist to a political party.

That's pretty naive. Those in the upper chamber are political hacks and owe their good fortune to the Prime Minister and the Party. And these are the same people who helped put the Prime Minister in place and guide him with Right Wing Rhetoric and pettiness.

Look at this despicable list of hatchet and hacks.

It's a great case to abolish the Senate.

Close the doors on this burden to the taxpayer and country club for party elites.

[Topaz]

Wasn't Finley one of the guys who try to bribe Cadman? Is the moral and maybe legal cancer now moving from the PMO to the senate?

[jdobbin]

I'm not entirely sure how any Senator could be considered a loyalist to a political party. They may hold certain political ideologies, but, once appointed to the upper house, what benefit is there to cow to the whims of a party leader? The Prime Minister can't threaten a Senator with dismissal, and why would someone getting paid $130,000 annually want to vote to diminish their own job security? The red chamber was built with a thick wall between it and the severely partisan commons.

The Senate is set up so that it supports the party format.

Certainly once a Senator is there, they can do what they want. Most do follow party initiatives though, don't you think?

[Wild Bill]

That's pretty naive. Those in the upper chamber are political hacks and owe their good fortune to the Prime Minister and the Party. And these are the same people who helped put the Prime Minister in place and guide him with Right Wing Rhetoric and pettiness.

Look at this despicable list of hatchet and hacks.

It's a great case to abolish the Senate.

Close the doors on this burden to the taxpayer and country club for party elites.

What do you think of our chances to change, let alone abolish the Senate under a Liberal government?

When Harper first purposed changing the Senate, the Opposition howled that it couldn't be done! It would mean constitutional change. The carping was so shrill it almost seemed as if they considered it blasphemy to even try.

So he backed off and appointed new Senators the old way, with lip service to those provinces wishing to elect their own candidates for the job. Now the Opposition howls that is is mere patronage, JUST LIKE THEY THEMSELVES HAVE ALWAYS PRACTICED!

I mean, Trudeau actually appointed his chauffeur, for Pete's sake!

When you cut through all the crap, what's left is that for the time being Harper has no choice but to play the game by the traditional rules. The Opposition can howl all they want. They know full well that if they can embarrass him into not playing the game by their rules HE WILL LOSE AND THEY WILL WIN! It's as simple as that.

Meanwhile, if and when he can break the Liberal majority hold in the Senate he will have a bit better chance at achieving actual positive change. Maybe he won't be successful, but if he does it the Opposition's way, it won't happen at all.

I think it important to note that the Liberals have never shown any meaningful sign of wanting to actually make the Senate more effective and democratic. They've attacked Harper but I challenge anyone to cite anything more than mere muttering about changing things themselves.

Same old smoke and mirrors, I guess.

[g_bambino]

That's pretty naive.

Maybe. But you ignored most of my post. With no leverage, how can a Prime Minister have political influence over someone once they've been summoned by the Governor General to the Senate?

[jdobbin]

Maybe. But you ignored most of my post. With no leverage, how can a Prime Minister have political influence over someone once they've been summoned by the Governor General to the Senate?

They can't directly. However, party loyalty still ensures that Senators will caucus with the elected body and try to fulfill the goals of the party.

There have been few cases of totally independent Senators.

[Moonbox]

There will be pretty strong idealogical ties in the Senate. The current government can make sure that they stack the Senate with people that think and believe the same things they do.

[jdobbin]

One of the new Senators:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090827/...s/senate_demers

Ex-NHL hockey coach Jacques Demers, who has spoken frankly about his lifelong battle with illiteracy, is about to be named to the Senate, his employer said Thursday.

[jdobbin]

A selections of greatest Harper quotes on the Senate as floating around the Internet today:

"We don't support any Senate appointments."

(Stephen Harper, Winnipeg Free Press, January 29, 1996)

"Despite the fine work of many individual Senators, the Upper House remains a dumping ground for the favoured cronies of the Prime Minister."

(Stephen Harper Leadership Website, January 15, 2004)

"In the 21st century, those who want to sit in the parliament of a democratic state should have a mandate from the people."

(Stephen Harper, February 7, 2006)

"A conservative government will not appoint to the senate anyone who does not have a mandate from the people."

(Conservative Party website during 2006 election)

"As everyone in this room knows, it has become a right of passage for aspiring leaders and prime ministers to promise Senate reform - on their way to the top - but once they are elected, Senate reform quickly falls to the bottom of the Government's agenda. Nothing ever gets done."

(Stephen Harper, Speech on Senate Reform before Senate Committee, September 7, 2006)

"I don't plan to appoint senators; that's not my intention."

(Stephen Harper, Cornwall Standard-Freeholder, January 14, 2006)

"Stephen Harper will cease patronage appointments to the Senate. Only candidates elected by the people will be named to the Upper House."

(Stephen Harper Leadership Website, January 15, 2004)

"I challenge Mr. Martin, once he becomes Prime Minister, to turn a page on the past, and appoint only elected Senators to the Upper House."

(Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance Press Release, July 4, 2003)

"Canadians from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia remain ashamed of Canada`s senior legislative body. They are ashamed the Prime Minister continues the disgraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Liberals to the undemocratic Senate to pass all too often undemocratic legislation."

(Stephen Harper, Hansard, March 7, 1996)

[scorpio]

Yeah, one big Harpercrite

Edited August 27, 2009 by scorpio

[fellowtraveller]

Your reputation for dishonesty is reconfirmed every day.

Not noted are the terms under which Harper appoints Senators: they are for 8 year terms, and each appointee agrees to support Senate reform.

Harper gaining control of the Senate itselfis but one step in Senate reform, but it won't happen as long as the Liberals hold a majority and delay change at their capricious worst.

[Smallc]

The nerve of this man is astounding. He continues to talk about his government as if it was directly elected. He also seems to imply that the Senate is wrong to oppose the government if they don't agree. I like him less again. Much less.

[Remiel]

Not noted are the terms under which Harper appoints Senators: they are for 8 year terms, and each appointee agrees to support Senate reform.

Once they are in, there is no possible enforcement of either.

[Smallc]

Thank goodness too. An appointed Senate with term limits of 8 years could become quite a place after a single party spends 8 years in power.

[g_bambino]

He continues to talk about his government as if it was directly elected. He also seems to imply that the Senate is wrong to oppose the government if they don't agree.

That's his Reform dogma leaking out. No wonder he seemed baffled when he, President Harper, elected by the people, had to go to a higher power to have his wish for a prorogued parliament granted. Harper basically wants our government to mimic the Americans'; directly elected executive, elected judges, confirmation hearings, elected Senate, etc., etc.

_[sp.]

Edited August 27, 2009 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

Harper basically wants our government to mimic the Americans'; directly elected executive, elected judges, confirmation hearings, elected Senate, etc., etc.

_[sp.]

It's mind boggling. To some, it's as if a system that has worked well for hundreds of years is suddenly bad....and the same thing is happening in the UK, at a faster pace in fact. There will soon be no more sober second thought anywhere if some get their way.

[Remiel]

....and the same thing is happening in the UK, at a faster pace in fact.

Well, the House of Lords is a somewhat different beast, I think. The fact that 92 of its seats are hereditary can be nothing but trouble.

[Smallc]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that we should have the house of Lords, because we're a different place with a different history. I simply don't like this idea of change for the sake of change.

[ReeferMadness]

I don't want change for the sake of change. I want change for the sake of democracy.

Getting a seat in the senate because you're a buddy of the PM is just plain wrong.

[Smallc]

But change for the sake of democracy is change for the sake of change. Perhaps we should have a different appointment method (a panel that advises the PM for example), but election brings nothing to and in fact takes away from the purpose of the Senate.

[capricorn]

I don't know what the big fuss is about this latest round of Senate appointments. When the Liberals finally return to government, they'll be doing the very same thing. Ho-hum and a yawn.

[Smallc]

The Liberals never promised that they wouldn't. Harper once again proves that he's a giant hypocrite among other things.

[Keepitsimple]

A selections of greatest Harper quotes on the Senate as floating around the Internet today:

Accurate quotes.....it should be clear to everyone that he has tried to live up to his priciples and reform the Senate from the outside - it hasn't worked mainly due to the Liberals having a vested and partisan interest in leaving it the way it is....so hopefully, the Senate will eventually have a Conservative majority and it can be reformed from within - starting with the eight year terms. It's been frustrating to watch because I doubt there are too many people that prefer the status quo.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Keepitsimple